Trouble with upgrading ports...
Michael C. Shultz
ringworm01 at gmail.com
Mon Feb 21 05:06:21 GMT 2005
On Sunday 20 February 2005 09:00 pm, Eric Schuele wrote:
> I am having difficulty upgrading ports on all my freebsd 5.3-stable
> machines. They all have been cvsup'd and built within the last few
> But for the last week, maybe two... something strange has been (not)
> happening. Portversion no longer correctly reports what ports need
> updating. But if I do a 'portupgrade -arR', the appropriate things
> get upgraded.... and then later it says they 'succeed' the port!?!
> It feels like the INDEX is not getting update at all, or something.
> I have a script (attached) to update my system sources. I then
> portupgrade, or buildworld whenever I feel like it. It has ben
> working fine for quite sometime. Maybe the script is bad and I was
> bound to mess my machines up. Not sure.
> Either way... If I delete my INDEX and then 'make fetchindex'...
> things don't resolve themselves. I'm really not sure where the
> problem is. I was hoping someone could point me in the right
> direction. Below is an example of the behavior I am seeing. This is
> happening on three machines (all using the same scripts... and me).
> fangorn# cd /usr/ports
> fangorn# rm INDEX-5
> fangorn# rm INDEX.db
> fangorn# make fetchindex
> INDEX-5.bz2 100% of 614 kB 366
> kBps fangorn# portsdb -u
> [Updating the portsdb <format:bdb1_btree> in /usr/ports ... - 12376
> port entries found
>.11000.........12000... ..... done]
> fangorn# portversion -v -L "="
> ImageMagick-220.127.116.11 > succeeds port (port has 18.104.22.168)
> bitstream-vera-1.10_1 > succeeds port (port has 1.10)
> docbook-xsl-1.68.1 > succeeds port (port has 1.68.0)
> dri-6.2.1,2 > succeeds port (port has 6.2_2,2)
> emacs-21.3_4 > succeeds port (port has 21.3_3)
> gnutls-1.0.24_1 > succeeds port (port has 1.0.24)
> libfpx-22.214.171.124 > succeeds port (port has 126.96.36.199_1)
> fangorn# portupgrade -narR
> ---> Session started at: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 22:25:46 -0600
> ** No need to upgrade 'dagrab-0.3.5_1' (>= dagrab-0.3.5_1). (specify
> -f to force)
> ** No need to upgrade 'gkrellm-2.2.4_1' (>= gkrellm-2.2.4_1).
> (specify -f to force)
> ---> Listing the results (+:done / -:ignored / *:skipped / !:failed)
> - audio/dagrab (dagrab-0.3.5_1)
> - textproc/xmlcatmgr (xmlcatmgr-2.2)
> - graphics/imlib2 (imlib2-1.1.2_1)
> + devel/libast (libast-0.5_1) <--- This DOES need upgrade
> - textproc/jade (jade-1.2.1_9)
> - www/firefox (firefox-1.0_7,1)
> - x11-wm/fluxconf (fluxconf-0.9.7_1)
> - sysutils/gkrellm2 (gkrellm-2.2.4_1)
> ---> Packages processed: 1 done, 168 ignored, 0 skipped and 0 failed
> ---> Session ended at: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 22:26:18 -0600 (consumed
> 00:00:32) fangorn# exit
> Everything that portversion reports as suceeding the ports, DOES.
> But it shouldn't since the script updates the ports and THEN upgrades
> those installed. Portupgrade correctly realizes that devel/libast
> requires an upgrade... portversion does not.
> I've looked in the past posts, handbook, man pages, UPDATING, various
> READMEs.... but really not sure what I'm looking for at this point.
> Thanks in advance.
sysutils/portmanager can upgrade those ports and does not need the INDEX
file to do so.
More information about the freebsd-questions